Dale, > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 April 2008 19:01 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] E.164-based SIP URIs and TEL URIs as aliases > > > From: "Elwell, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [JRE] But what about other parameters on the right hand side. For > example, is > tel:+123456789 > an alias for: > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone;gr=abd76gd6 ? > > I don't think so. > > And is: > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone; > an alias for: > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone;gr=abd76gd6 ? > > I don't think so > > And is: > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone;gr=abd76gd6 > an alias for: > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone;gr=abd76gd6 ? > Possibly, assuming by routing the first one to provider.net it > eventually gets changed to the latter and routed accordingly. > > Personally, I agree with you that these URIs are all "different". But > if we consider them to be different, any signing mechanism must > consider them to be different, and any transport mechanism must avoid > changing one of them into another. > > Previously in this discussion, people have argued that SBCs are not > behaving incorrectly when they change one of these URIs into another, > and that thus any signing mechanism must tolerate such a substitution. [JRE] I don't see how we can tolerate the dropping of the gr parameter, which would happen in a couple of cases above if the URIs concerned were treated as aliases.
John _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
